Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ondath" data-source="post: 9070580" data-attributes="member: 7031770">First of all, I called your argument disingenious because your tone was fairly accusatory towards [USER=7035894]@Clint_L[/USER] for no reason, and made it seem like his dislike of psionics (and desire to have his D&amp;D without it) was something unusual. This is disingenious when removing things from the game has been a thing since a second DM other than Gary Gygax ran the game.Second of all, I saw your reply to [USER=4534]@MGibster[/USER] that the racial examples were a moral false equivalence only after my comment was already posted. I agree that the moral weight of those examples does make the situation slightly different (in that it adds a moral reason as to why you might want to rid your table of those early influences). Which is precisely why I added other, non-morally relevant examples to my list, like descending AC. I can add more if needed: Exploration turns and resource-based dungeon crawling, alignment, random encounters, even the concept of experience. These are all things that were essential to how D&amp;D was run in its early years, but we've had plenty of tables who have done without them, and nobody sneers at people who don't want them at their table (which is what you did to Clint_L).And we can expand on your monk example even more: People who dislike high-level magic remove spellcasters altogether, or put a hard level cap at Level 6 so nobody can play a Level 20 Wizard. And, again, nobody snipes at them by saying &quot;D&amp;D had high-level magic from its inception, and you don't want them at your D&amp;D? Puh-leeze.&quot;Can you see why I found the way you completely disregarded a different way of playing D&amp;D disingenuous?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ondath, post: 9070580, member: 7031770"] First of all, I called your argument disingenious because your tone was fairly accusatory towards [USER=7035894]@Clint_L[/USER] for no reason, and made it seem like his dislike of psionics (and desire to have his D&D without it) was something unusual. This is disingenious when removing things from the game has been a thing since a second DM other than Gary Gygax ran the game. Second of all, I saw your reply to [USER=4534]@MGibster[/USER] that the racial examples were a moral false equivalence only after my comment was already posted. I agree that the moral weight of those examples does make the situation slightly different (in that it adds a moral reason as to why you might want to rid your table of those early influences). Which is precisely why I added other, non-morally relevant examples to my list, like descending AC. I can add more if needed: Exploration turns and resource-based dungeon crawling, alignment, random encounters, even the concept of experience. These are all things that were essential to how D&D was run in its early years, but we've had plenty of tables who have done without them, and nobody sneers at people who don't want them at their table (which is what you did to Clint_L). And we can expand on your monk example even more: People who dislike high-level magic remove spellcasters altogether, or put a hard level cap at Level 6 so nobody can play a Level 20 Wizard. And, again, nobody snipes at them by saying "D&D had high-level magic from its inception, and you don't want them at [I]your[/I] D&D? Puh-leeze." Can you see why I found the way you completely disregarded a different way of playing D&D disingenuous? [/QUOTE]

Verification